View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Big Dave Moderator

Joined: 04 Dec 2005 Posts: 2651 Location: Tampa Florida 120135.12 points
|
Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Paul P wrote: | Stainless is lighter by at least 40% |
It isn't lighter it is tougher (harder to bend or machine). As such you could make a pipe or any other part smaller dimensionally to lighten it and get the same performance out of a lightened stainless part as you would mild steel.
Often such as in exhaust pipes the pipe wall is thicker for mild steel than needed dimensionally for stiffness, because everyone knows it will rust away and fail over time if not aluminized and made thicker (hence heavier). Otherwise an 16 gage stainless pipe will weight about the same as a similar length 16 gauge mild steel pipe.
They also make stainless exhaust pipe out of a thinner gage metal sheet than mild steel because the 304 stainless cost more to buy as raw material than the mild steel does.
Big Dave |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
af2 Member

Joined: 01 Sep 2003 Posts: 5558 Location: grassvalley, ca 71227.76 points
1933 Willys Coupe
|
Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It all depends on the alloy. But steel and stainless are within .2 lbs per foot. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Paul P Member

Joined: 15 Aug 2002 Posts: 2408 Location: Townsend, Mass. 81731.10 points
1971 Chevrolet Chevelle
|
Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok just to be clear the stainless 3.5" pipe I have is .060" thick. The steel 3" pipe I removed is near .120" thick. There is the weight end of story. I know that they are basically the same material weight a=b dimensions but they are different thicknesses like I said in my post earlier.
Moving on now. The WB )2 sensor had to be replaced when after warming up the motor it was all over the place. The 22 psi fuel pressure setting has a lean miss as I am accelerating through the higher RPMs. The gauge is reading lean in the mid to high 13/1 AFR and as soon as I hear a miss fire I let off. Mid range is nice! I will have to fatten it up with more fuel pressure and some adjustments. _________________ 2001 Focus 2.0 Zetec
stock cams, bolt-ons and tune
15.63@87 MPH 1/4mi
1971 - Chevelle 408 SBC N/A
6.86@102.5 MPH 1/8mi
10.78@122 MPH 1/4mi
 |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
af2 Member

Joined: 01 Sep 2003 Posts: 5558 Location: grassvalley, ca 71227.76 points
1933 Willys Coupe
|
Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think the original was .120 wall..... But going from 14 gauge to 16 gauge is going to be lighter.!!
Glad you have a handle on it!!! Good luck Paul the times will tell... |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Paul P Member

Joined: 15 Aug 2002 Posts: 2408 Location: Townsend, Mass. 81731.10 points
1971 Chevrolet Chevelle
|
Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Adam,
Torque Tech says that they are 16 gauge steel with aluminized coating. Certainly not .120" thick you are right. They are up for sale too! _________________ 2001 Focus 2.0 Zetec
stock cams, bolt-ons and tune
15.63@87 MPH 1/4mi
1971 - Chevelle 408 SBC N/A
6.86@102.5 MPH 1/8mi
10.78@122 MPH 1/4mi
 |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Paul P Member

Joined: 15 Aug 2002 Posts: 2408 Location: Townsend, Mass. 81731.10 points
1971 Chevrolet Chevelle
|
Posted: Sat Nov 16, 2013 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
25psi not enough. <TEST TEST TEST>.... Not sure how much this regulator has in it. _________________ 2001 Focus 2.0 Zetec
stock cams, bolt-ons and tune
15.63@87 MPH 1/4mi
1971 - Chevelle 408 SBC N/A
6.86@102.5 MPH 1/8mi
10.78@122 MPH 1/4mi
 |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
clay Moderator

Joined: 24 Nov 2002 Posts: 3209 Location: South Carolina 318129.23 points
1972 Chevrolet Nova
|
Posted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How about the fuel pump? I'm thinking you are exceeding what Holley ever planned that system feeding. However I would think you could get around that by forcing the regulator open and running an external regulator and something like a A1000 pump. That combo would feed a ton as least from a supply point. Keep us posted. Clay _________________ I have done so much with so little for so long, I can now do anything with nothing. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
10sec.et Member

Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 3477 Location: Houston,Texas 346819.60 points
1969 Oldsmobile Cutlass
|
Posted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
clay wrote: | How about the fuel pump? I'm thinking you are exceeding what Holley ever planned that system feeding. However I would think you could get around that by forcing the regulator open and running an external regulator and something like a A1000 pump. That combo would feed a ton as least from a supply point. Keep us posted. Clay |
i was thinking the same thing. i just battled with a truck trying to use a pump for TBI on a MPFI system. it wasnt happy. _________________
af2 wrote: | It seems we can look at our magical Balls and come up with a fix?
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Paul P Member

Joined: 15 Aug 2002 Posts: 2408 Location: Townsend, Mass. 81731.10 points
1971 Chevrolet Chevelle
|
Posted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes I have thought of regulating it from outside.
Remember this thing was running well with the old injectors which did flow better than the new style. The supplied pump is 255 LPH with a with a 100 PSI peak pressure. Should be fine for near 900 HP normally aspirated. _________________ 2001 Focus 2.0 Zetec
stock cams, bolt-ons and tune
15.63@87 MPH 1/4mi
1971 - Chevelle 408 SBC N/A
6.86@102.5 MPH 1/8mi
10.78@122 MPH 1/4mi

Last edited by Paul P on Sun Nov 17, 2013 10:53 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
clay Moderator

Joined: 24 Nov 2002 Posts: 3209 Location: South Carolina 318129.23 points
1972 Chevrolet Nova
|
Posted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I thought you were close when the injectors failed but never knew you had it figured out. Looks like Holley did good on putting plenty of pump capacity in that system - sounds like you've got a good handle on it and are close. Cool. Clay _________________ I have done so much with so little for so long, I can now do anything with nothing. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Paul P Member

Joined: 15 Aug 2002 Posts: 2408 Location: Townsend, Mass. 81731.10 points
1971 Chevrolet Chevelle
|
Posted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hope so. The original injectors were doing well with only 21psi until they quit. Adjusted it last night and the pressure is fluctuating about 1/2 psi but holding at 28. There might be more in it still.
If I had 2000 to drop on Fast 2.0 I would do it. _________________ 2001 Focus 2.0 Zetec
stock cams, bolt-ons and tune
15.63@87 MPH 1/4mi
1971 - Chevelle 408 SBC N/A
6.86@102.5 MPH 1/8mi
10.78@122 MPH 1/4mi
 |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
10sec.et Member

Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 3477 Location: Houston,Texas 346819.60 points
1969 Oldsmobile Cutlass
|
Posted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
just my opinion but, i dont really care for the FAST EFI. I have never installed one i didnt have issues with. I do like the Holley setup. IMO, the best option is to build your own with a factory GM computer and harness. _________________
af2 wrote: | It seems we can look at our magical Balls and come up with a fix?
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Big Dave Moderator

Joined: 04 Dec 2005 Posts: 2651 Location: Tampa Florida 120135.12 points
|
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2013 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
10sec.et wrote: | just my opinion but, i dont really care for the FAST EFI. I have never installed one i didnt have issues with. I do like the Holley setup. IMO, the best option is to build your own with a factory GM computer and harness. |
Keith since you are the acknowledged expert in EFI what are the advantages of the GM system? I thought because they all have to be flashed to be reprogramed that you would be better off with a programmable chip up front and use a hand held controller with preprogramed tables to load or program it from a lap top by tweaking the values in the table.
Is there a difference in the processor speed or number of data lines that makes the GM computer superior? (I am assuming a wire is a wire, so the wiring harness I figured if I had to I could recreate one crimp at a time using those new water tight plugs). I figured the FAST was a Bosch or similar Japanese made computer that they recycled for their own needs.
Inquirying minds want to know
Big Dave |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Paul P Member

Joined: 15 Aug 2002 Posts: 2408 Location: Townsend, Mass. 81731.10 points
1971 Chevrolet Chevelle
|
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2013 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
10sec.et wrote: | just my opinion but, i dont really care for the FAST EFI. I have never installed one i didnt have issues with. I do like the Holley setup. IMO, the best option is to build your own with a factory GM computer and harness. |
Have you installed the new FAST 2.0 system or heard any news about it? I heard that has been improved quite a bit. _________________ 2001 Focus 2.0 Zetec
stock cams, bolt-ons and tune
15.63@87 MPH 1/4mi
1971 - Chevelle 408 SBC N/A
6.86@102.5 MPH 1/8mi
10.78@122 MPH 1/4mi
 |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
clay Moderator

Joined: 24 Nov 2002 Posts: 3209 Location: South Carolina 318129.23 points
1972 Chevrolet Nova
|
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2013 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm guessing it's programming related. From what I've seen in the Ford computer there are a tremendous amount of parameters dealing with drivability, idle, air conditioning control, emissions, etc. and about another 100 that I have no clue whaty they deal with. I don't think it would be hardware related but I'm just guessing. Clay _________________ I have done so much with so little for so long, I can now do anything with nothing. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|